Haryana

Sonipat

226/2013

KAMLESH W/O VED SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. STATE OF HARYANA,2. HEALTH DEPARTMENT HARYANA,3.MEDICAL OFFICER ARE DR. RAMESH SATHI - Opp.Party(s)

RAM MEHAR KAUSIK

27 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.       

 

                                Complaint No.226 of 2013

                                Instituted on:1.5.2013                                               Date of order:29.07.2015

 

Kamlesh wife of Ved Singh son of Bhale Ram, resident of village Bhawar, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

..Complainant

 

                            Versus

 

1.State of Haryana through Collector, Sonepat.

2.Health Department through Director Health Services of Haryana Office at Chandigarh.

3.Medical Officer Dr Ramesh Sathi Medical Officer Civil Hospital, Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

..Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Ram Mehar Advocate for complainant.

          Respondents ex-parte.

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that the complainant  was not intended to give birth to any child after the birth of Anuj, Mamta daughters and son Shiv Kumar.   So, she contacted to the ANM Sheela for getting proper guidance regarding operation of tubecutomy and the said ANM suggested the name of Govt. Civil Hospital, Gohana.  The operation of the complainant was conducted by the respondent no.3 on 1.10.2009 at Civil Hospital, Gohana.  But the said operation was not properly conducted by the respondent no.3 as the complainant got pregnant after some time  and thus, she contacted Dr Neelam Gupta at Jind who told the complainant about her pregnancy.  She also contacted Dr CD Sharma who asked the complainant to get her check up in PGIMS Rohtak and the doctors of PGIMS Rohtak told the complainant on 6.6.2012 that her pregnancy tube is burst due to negligence act of the concerned doctor at the time of conducting operation for family planning and due to this wrongful act of the respondent no.3, she has suffered huge financial loss, mental agony, harassment and thus, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In the present case, the respondents no.1,2 and 3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 4.8.2014, 1.5.2015 and 4.6.2015 respectively.

3.        We have heard the ex-parte arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the complainant and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that tubecotomy operation of the complainant was conducted by the respondent no.3 on 1.10.2009 at Civil Hospital, Gohana.  But the said operation was not properly conducted by the respondent no.3 as the complainant got pregnant after some time  and thus, she contacted Dr Neelam Gupta at Jind who told the complainant about her pregnancy.  She also contacted Dr CD Sharma who asked the complainant to get her check up in PGIMS Rohtak and the doctors of PGIMS Rohtak told the complainant on 6.6.2012 that her pregnancy tube is burst due to negligence act of the concerned doctor at the time of conducting operation for family planning and due to this wrongful act of the respondent no.3, she has suffered huge financial loss, mental agony, harassment.  In support of his case, he has placed on record the documents Ex.C1 to C14.

          In the present case, opportunity was given to the respondent no.3 to appear before this Forum and to defend the present complaint, but the above said opportunity has gone waste since the respondent no.3  has chosen to proceed ex-parte.  Due to this act and conduct of the respondent, the pleadings of the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged and we have no other option except to accept the same. 

          The complainant by way of present complaint has claimed Rs.5 lacs as compensation, but the said claimed amount is on a very higher side, excessive and exorbitant one.  However, in our view, Rs.50000/- (Rs.fifty thousands) would be an adequate compensation to be granted to the complainant from respondent no.3.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent no.3 to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.50000/- (Rs.fifty thousands) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed ex-parte qua respondent no.3.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to the complainant free of cost and the same be also sent to the respondent for information and its strict compliance.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:29.07.2015